Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Storm damage of Douglas-fir unexpectedly high compared to Norway spruce

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Annals of Forest Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

Since storm damage has a large impact on forest management in Central Europe, we investigated the main storm risk factors for two important conifer species, Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii [Mirbel] Franco) and Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.).

Aims

We compared general storm damage levels of Douglas-fir and Norway spruce, the latter being known to have high storm risk among European tree species.

Methods

Generalized linear mixed models and boosted regression trees were applied to recorded storm damage of individual trees from long-term experimental plots in southwest Germany. This included two major winter storm events in 1990 and 1999. Over 40 candidate predictors were tested for their explanatory power for storm damage and summarized into predictor categories for further interpretation.

Results

The two most important categories associated with storm damage were timber removals and topographic or site information, explaining between 18 and 54 % of storm damage risk, respectively. Remarkably, general damage levels were not different between Douglas-fir and Norway spruce.

Conclusion

Under current forest management approaches, Douglas-fir may be considered a species with high storm risk in Central Europe, comparable to that of Norway spruce.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Albrecht A (2009) Sturmschadensanalysen langfristiger waldwachstumskundlicher Versuchsflächendaten in Baden-Württemberg. Dissertation, University of Freiburg

  • BMVEL (2006) Results from the National Forest Inventory 2001/2. German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection. Available at http://www.bundeswaldinventur.de/enid/98bb5c5ea761ec258d9e6e619a27f9b2,0/76.html. Accessed 7 September 2012

  • Bouchon J (1987) État de la recherche relative aux dégâts forestiers dus aux tempêtes. Rev For Fr 39:301–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colin F, Vinkler I, Riou-Nivert P, Renaud J-P, Hervé J-C, Bock J, Piton B (2009) Facteurs de risque de chablis dans les peuplements forestiers: les leçons tirées des tempêtes de 1999. In: Birot Y, Landmann G, Bonhême I (eds) La forêt face aux tempêtes. Quae Editions, Versailles, pp 177–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremer KW, Borough CJ, McKinnel FH, Carter PR (1982) Effects of stocking and thinning on wind damage in plantations. N Z J For Sci 12:244–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Cucchi V, Meredieu C, Stokes A, Coligny FD, Suarez J, Gardiner BA (2005) Modelling the windthrow risk for simulated forest stands of maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Ait.). For Ecol Manag 213:184–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhôte J-F (2005) Implication of forest diversity in resistance to strong winds. In: Scherer-Lorenzen M, Körner C, Schulze E-D (eds) Forest diversity and function. Springer, Berlin, pp 291–307. doi:210.1007/1003-1540-26599-26596_26514

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dobbertin M (2002) Influence of stand structure and site factors on wind damage comparing the storms Vivian and Lothar. For Snow Landsc Res 77:187–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Elith J, Leathwick JR, Hastie T (2008) A working guide to boosted regression trees. J Anim Ecol 77:802–813

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Enke W, Deutschländer T, Schneider F, Küchler W (2005) Results of five regional climate studies applying a weather pattern based downscaling method to ECHAM4 climate simulation. Meteorol Z 14:247–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman JH, Meulman JJ (2003) Multiple additive regression trees with application in epidemiology. Stat Med 22:1365–1381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Groth O (1927) Die Wurzelbildung der Douglasie und ihr Einfluß auf die Sturm- und Schneefestigkeit dieser Holzart. Offprint Allg For Jagdztg 103 (in German)

  • Hanewinkel M (2005) Neural networks for assessing the risk of windthrow on the forest division level: a case study in southwest Germany. Eur J For Res 124:243–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heidingsfelder A, Knoke T (2004) Douglasie versus Fichte. J.D. Sauerländer’s Verlag, Frankfurt am Main (in German)

  • Heneka P, Hofherr T, Ruck B, Kottmeier C (2006) Winter storm risk of residential structures—model development and application to the German state of Baden-Württemberg. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 6:721–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermann RK (2005) Wurzelstudien an Douglasie—ein Literaturüberblick. In: Dong PH (ed) Zum Anbau und Wachstum der Douglasie. Mitt Forsch Anst Waldökologie Forstwirtsch Rheinl-Pfalz 55:135–164 (in German)

  • Johnson M, Kohler G, Omdal D, Kroll A R, Ripley K, Hostetler B, Mathison R, Nelson A (2010) Forest health highlights in Washington 2009. DNR WA, Forest Health Program. Available at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/rp_fh_2009_forest_health_highlights.pdf. Accessed 7 September 2012

  • König A (1995) Sturmgefährdung von Beständen im Altersklassenwald. Dissertation, Technical University of Munich (in German)

  • Lanquaye-Opoku N, Mitchell SJ (2005) Portability of stand-level empirical windthrow risk models. For Ecol Manag 216:134–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leckebusch G, Koffi B, Ulbrich U, Pinto JG, Spangehl T, Zacharias S (2006) Analysis of frequency and intensity of European winter storm events from a multi-model perspective, at synoptic and regional scales. Clim Res 31:59–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O (2006) SAS for mixed models, 2nd edn. SAS Institute Inc., Cary

    Google Scholar 

  • Lohmander P, Helles F (1987) Windthrow probability as a function of stand characteristics and shelter. Scand J For Res 2:227–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maccurrach RS (1991) Spacing: an option for reducing storm damage. Scott For 45:285–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason WL, Quine CP (1995) Silvicultural possibilities for increasing structural diversity in British spruce forests: the case of Kielder Forest. For Ecol Manag 79:13–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer P, Brang P, Dobbertin M, Hallenbarter D, Renaud J-P, Walthert L, Zimmermann S (2005) Forest storm damage is more frequent on acidic soils. Ann For Sci 62:303–311

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mayhead GJ (1973) Some drag coefficients for British forest trees derived from wind tunnel studies. Agric Meteorol 12:123–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComb WC, Spies TA, Emmingham WH (1993) Douglas-fir forests—managing for timber and mature-forest habitat. J For 91:31–42

    Google Scholar 

  • McMinn RG (1963) Characteristics of Douglas-fir root systems. Can J Bot 41:105–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicoll BC, Gardiner BA, Peace AJ (2008) Improvements in anchorage provided by the acclimation of forest trees to wind stress. For 81:389–398

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicoll BC, Gardiner BA, Rayner B, Peace AJ (2006) Anchorage of coniferous trees in relation to species, soil type, and rooting depth. Can J For Res 36:1871–1883

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quine C (1995) Assessing the risk of wind damage to forests: practice and pitfalls. In: Coutts MP, Grace J (eds) Wind and trees. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 379–403

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rich RL, Frelich LE, Reich PB (2007) Wind-throw mortality in the southern boreal forest: effects of species, diameter and stand age. J Ecol 95:1261–1273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridgeway G (2006) Generalized boosted regression models. Documentation on the R package “gbm”. Available at http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/gbm/gbm.pdf. Accessed 7 September 2012

  • Riou-Nivert P (2003) Tempêtes et dégâts aux forêts : évolution sur le XXe siècle. Programme International Géosphère Biosphère–Programme Mondial de recherches sur le climat (PIGB-PMRC) 15:46–49

  • Rottmann M (1986) Wind- und Sturmschäden im Wald. J.D. Sauerländer’s Verlag, Frankfurt am Main (in German)

  • Rudnicki M, Mitchell SJ, Novak MD (2004) Wind tunnel measurements of crown streamlining and drag relationships for three conifer species. Can J For Res 34:666–676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmid-Haas P, Bachofen H (1991) Die Sturmgefährdung von Einzelbäumen und Beständen. Schweiz Z Forstwes 142:477–504 (in German)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt M, Hanewinkel M, Kändler G, Kublin E, Kohnle U (2010) An inventory-based approach for modeling single tree storm damage—experiences with the winter storm 1999 in southwestern Germany. Can J For Res 40:1636–1652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schütz J-P, Götz M, Schmid W, Mandallaz D (2006) Vulnerability of spruce (Picea abies) and beech (Fagus sylvatica) forest stands to storms and consequences for silviculture. Eur J For Res 125:291–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spiecker H, Mielikäinen K, Koehl M, Skovsgaard JP (eds) (1996) Growth trends in European forests: studies from 12 countries. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Stock M (ed) (2005) Klimawandel—Auswirkungen, Risiken, Anpassung. Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research, PIK Report (99) (in German)

  • Studholme WP (1995) The experience of and management strategy adopted by the Selwyn Plantation Board, New Zealand. In: Coutts MP, Grace J (eds) Wind and trees. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 468–476

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Telewski FW (1995) Wind-induced physiological and developmental responses in trees. In: Coutts MP, Grace J (eds) Wind and trees. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 237–263

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • The SAS Institute Inc (2006) The GLIMMIX procedure—June 2006. Available at http://support.sas.com/rnd/app/papers/glimmix.pdf. Accessed 7 September 2012

  • Von Teuffel K, Heinrich B, Baumgarten M (2004) Present distribution of secondary Norway spruce in Europe. In: Spiecker H, Hansen J, Klimo E, Skovsgaard JP, Sterba H, Von Teuffel K (eds) Norway spruce conversion—options and consequences. Brill, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Vollsinger S, Mitchell SJ, Byrne KE, Novak MD, Rudnicki M (2005) Wind tunnel measurements of crown streamlining and drag relationships for several hardwood species. Can J For Res 35:1238–1249

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Edgar Kublin for statistical consulting and Ms. Robin Hillestad for native English language reviewing of this publication.

Funding

This study was partly funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research under funding code 0330622 and by the Forest Research Institute Baden-Württemberg. The authors are responsible for the contents of this publication.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Forest Growth, Forest Research Institute Baden-Wuerttemberg, Wonnhaldestr. 4, 79100, Freiburg, Germany

    Axel Albrecht & Ulrich Kohnle

  2. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research, Zürich, Switzerland

    Marc Hanewinkel

  3. Institute of Silviculture, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany

    Jürgen Bauhus

Authors
  1. Axel Albrecht
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ulrich Kohnle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marc Hanewinkel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jürgen Bauhus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Axel Albrecht.

Additional information

Handling Editor: Barry Alan Gardiner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Albrecht, A., Kohnle, U., Hanewinkel, M. et al. Storm damage of Douglas-fir unexpectedly high compared to Norway spruce. Annals of Forest Science 70, 195–207 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-012-0244-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-012-0244-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation